/m/media

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

But - and I can't stress this enough - your strategy changes throughout the child's life.

Yes, very much yes. However, the implementation of 'new play calls' is a lot easier with the routine foundation in place as noted by Galean.

The games played by my kids (during age 2-3) are the same (trying to get Mom and Dad back to their room ), their tactics were very different.
1. Oldest girl would to angrily cry and tug on gate and eventually calm down.
2. Youngest girl, tries to come up with pretext 'I need water, I need to potty, where's my [insert toy]? and she eventually gives up.

of course, all you're doing is exchanging these conflicts for other ones every 12 months or so, and you adapt.

a LOT of men do not have tolerance for being thrown up on... and, hate to say this, but a lot of men's idea of "feeding the baby" is to put the baby in a car seat and prop the bottle on the edge.

I will say that as a dad of 3, I've been thrown up on a lot. When my oldest was a baby, I used to drop him off at daycare in an undershirt because he was damn near guaranteed to spit up on me. My #2 wasn't as bad, but when he threw up (as we now know, it was asthma related), he did it with style. I had more than a few times when my wife wasn't home that #2 sat in a bouncy seat while the oldest sat outside the bathroom door while I had to shower after being puked on.

My daughter is kind of a mix. She's puked on me quite a bit, but nowhere near as bad as her oldest brother.

am still not hearing any MEDICAL reason why it is necessary to put on all that FAT in the first place

There isn't any.

In terms of a child's overall health and development, it's undoubtedly much better to be the child of a mother who exercises and eats well and uses formula than to be the child of a breastfeeding mother whose diet and overall fitness are poor. I hear a lot more about the breastfeeding vs. formula, though.

I don't understand why people have any serious problem with public breastfeeding. I suppose it makes me slightly uncomfortable to talk to a nursing woman because I feel slightly awkward around any exposed breast that I'm not supposed to stare at. I don't think it's any less aesthetically pleasant than a bottle.

The problem isn't that men are uncomfortable around breast feeding.

The problem is that men, and in particular American men, are uncomfortable or unable to keep from misbehaving around breasts.

If something makes you uncomfortable, even though it is not, in fact, doing you any actual harm, the two obvious solutions are (a) make whatever is making you uncomfortable stop, at whatever the cost to anyone else, because you are, after all, the center of the universe, or (b) get over yourself.

It’s important to note here that it was men complaining about Esiason, Whitt, and other critics; it is men talking about how important being a dad is. Too often parental leave is seen as a women’s issue, so it is particularly awesome to have men arguing for it, too. Like the Rangers pitching coach, who said of the paternity list back in 2011, “I don’t know why we didn’t have it before. I’ve longed for the day we would… We have the bereavement list and to some, this is for something that’s even more sacred.” And in response to Esiason, Today’s Craig Melvin was shocked, asking, "Really, guys still think like this?"

Remember, Boomer Esiason is 52 years old. Mike Francesca, the other sports radio blowhard complaining about Murphy’s paternity leave, is 60. They don’t represent the current crop of new dads who have a new model and a new attitude when it comes to parenting.

am still not hearing any MEDICAL reason why it is necessary to put on all that FAT in the first place

Have you actually encountered doctors advising pregnant women to gain more than 30lbs or so at the high end? I've known plenty of women who have gained a ton of weight while pregnant, but every doctor I've spoken to says that between 15-30lbs is "normal" weight gain and women should try to wind up somewhere in that range.

but every doctor I've spoken to says that between 15-30lbs is "normal" weight gain and women should try to wind up somewhere in that range.

That was our experience, too. My experience (with my wife) is that it's much more societal than medical; my wife is naturally slim and gained just under 20 pounds during the whole pregnancy, which led to everyone from family and friends to total strangers in the checkout line (seriously) to constantly badger her about how she should gain more weight. The doctors were the ones reassuring her that everything was fine.

Related, I don't know how women put up with the #### they get from acquaintances and strangers during pregnancy. Everybody thinks it's their business that you're pregnant and they all feel entitled to offer unsolicited advice. I would get tired of that very quickly.

The problem is that men, and in particular American men, are uncomfortable or unable to keep from misbehaving around breasts.

I know men are simple, but even I can't make them ALL this simple. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of men who have no interest in misbehaving around bare breasts but still are stifled enough to be freaked out. IMO.

It depends on how much you weighed before you conceived and how appropriate that weight is for your height.

The guidelines for pregnancy weight gain are issued by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), most recently in May 2009. Here are the most current recommendations:

If your pre-pregnancy weight was in the healthy range for your height (a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9), you should gain between 25 and 35 pounds, gaining 1 to 5 pounds in the first trimester and about 1 pound per week for the rest of your pregnancy for the optimal growth of your baby.

If you were underweight for your height at conception (a BMI below 18.5), you should gain 28 to 40 pounds.

If you were overweight for your height (a BMI of 25 to 29.9), you should gain 15 to 25 pounds. If you were obese (a BMI of 30 or higher), you should gain between 11 and 20 pounds.

408. jmurph Posted: April 07, 2014 at 03:39 PM (#4681233)
but every doctor I've spoken to says that between 15-30lbs is "normal" weight gain and women should try to wind up somewhere in that range.

That was our experience, too. My experience (with my wife) is that it's much more societal than medical; my wife is naturally slim and gained just under 20 pounds during the whole pregnancy, which led to everyone from family and friends to total strangers in the checkout line (seriously) to constantly badger her about how she should gain more weight. The doctors were the ones reassuring her that everything was fine.

- i've always been scrawny and have caught shtt for this like forever. i was always being accused of being anorexic even though i eat plenty and HATE being skinny. when i started getting really sick when i as pregnant, i got accused of being anorexic/bulemic again. all the doctors/medical students/nurses/whoever were ALL endlessly screeching about how i needed to put on 40-50 POUNDS because of me being skinny in the first place

Related, I don't know how women put up with the #### they get from acquaintances and strangers during pregnancy. Everybody thinks it's their business that you're pregnant and they all feel entitled to offer unsolicited advice. I would get tired of that very quickly.

- and other women, no, other MOTHERS are the very worst
i SWORE i was not gonna pull that shtt with other women after i had mine and i haven't. i also don't tell other grrls how to run their babies, or grab them, especially right after the other grrrl just gave birth.

and no men would NOT put up with that shtt, which is why men don't get pregnant (and yes i LOVE the movie "junior" - especially ahnold asking if he looks fat in that dress...)

bbc-as a naturally slender woman keep in mind that it perhaps isn't as easy for women with other body types not to put weight on during the pregnancy.

I've gotta say that I've never heard any pregnant woman being told that she had to gain extra fat during her pregnancy. OTOH I've heard plenty of women worrying themselves sick about not being able to return to their previous normal weight after the baby was born. Based on women I've known who had children from their 20's through their 40's, I'd say that if a woman was tending towards overweight before pregnancy, she'll likely be more overweight after childbirth, but if she was thin to begin with, she won't have that much of a problem staying that way afterwards.

If you take in more calories than you burn, you gain weight. Almost everything beyond that is an excuse.

I've been within 5 pounds of my high school weight for over 50 years, but that's just a silly way of framing the issue. It assumes that everyone's metabolism is the same, which is demonstrably not the case.

I've been within 5 pounds of my high school weight for over 50 years, but that's just a silly way of framing the issue. It assumes that everyone's metabolism is the same, which is demonstrably not the case.

It doesn't assume any such thing.

But even if it did, it doesn't change anything. If Person A and Person B consume the same number of calories in a week and get the same amount of exercise, and Person A gains (unwanted) weight while Person B doesn't, then Person A needs to consume fewer calories and/or exercise more. With rare exceptions, it's as simple as that.

I brought up the weight of the mother when I mentioned Bringing Up Bebe. The assertion in that book is that whereas American women are given a pass by society to gain as much weight as they want, wear baggy clothing, take a long time getting back down to their normal weight, etc, French moms are more likely to lose weight and get back into the swing of a normal social life quickly. The book interprets this as a good impulse, that the French moms strike a better balance and do not allow their personal lives to be consumed by their duties as a mother. By contrast (and I've heard this a lot myself), American moms tend to say things like "I'm such a bad mom!" when they actually do anything for themselves, things they shouldn't feel guilty about at all.

WJ
i was sick as a Dog for 33 weeks, so that is why i am not using my own self as an example - i still can't believe i put on any weight at all. but i have talked to my mama and to women her age and they ALL told me there were put on a VERY strict diet and told not to gain more than 20 lbs. and mah mama is a BIG grrl - not fat. tall - awesome booty/boobs, legs. lucky grrrl. sigh. not fair

(mah mama's bff is thin blonde, White and her OB told her NOT to gain one ounce more than 15 lbs - she ended up gaining 17 lbs and the OB kept scolding her and telling her she had ruined her body - which is just going too damm far)

everyone i know my own age is not told they are gaining too much weight. no one has ever been given any kind of diet plan unless she has caught diabetes. my cousins/gf who had babies before age 20 usually lost most of the weight unless they were already fat. i only know one grrl who had more than 1 and is the same weight now that she was before getting preggo.

best i can tell from the women i have worked for is that if women first get pregnant when they are over 30, they don't usually go back to pre-pregnancy weight without plastic surgery/personal trainer/?drugs?

andy
pregnant women are not told to gain FAT. we are told to gain WEIGHT. when i asked why they want me to gain FAT - because most of the weight they wanted me to put on would NOT have been babies/placenta/fluid, i could not get any sort of straight answer except that there was something about how i couldn't get nutrition without getting fat - or some bullshttt like that

joe

there are differences in how people burn calories too. i usually eat 1500 - 1900 cal/day and i don't work out or anything and i should weigh a LOT more than i do by that. but i don't because i just burn it up. always have.

PF
now why does a french woman have to be pre-pregnancy weight in order to have a social life? that's stupid. why is she running off partying when she has a small infant? what are they doing, putting their babies in day/night care to go out? jeezus, i didn't WANT to leave mine when they were little. now i WOULD have liked them to go a little longer between feeds their first 2-3 months, but hey, that's how babies are. except in france, i guess, where you prop bottles and make them go 6 hours in between feeding and let them scream with hunger for hours while go you go out and have a social life.
- got no idea what you mean by "do things for themselves"

If you take in more calories than you burn, you gain weight. Almost everything beyond that is an excuse.

I've been within 5 pounds of my high school weight for over 50 years, but that's just a silly way of framing the issue. It assumes that everyone's metabolism is the same, which is demonstrably not the case.

It doesn't assume any such thing.

But even if it did, it doesn't change anything. If Person A and Person B consume the same number of calories in a week and get the same amount of exercise, and Person A gains (unwanted) weight while Person B doesn't, then Person A needs to consume fewer calories and/or exercise more. With rare exceptions, it's as simple as that.

Yes, and if you blow hard enough, the Sun will go out. Works on paper, anyway.

Joe, all I can say is that like me and Lisa, you must have been blessed with high metabolism. Count your blessings and skip the preachings to everyone not so lucky.

Let's say 2 people each consume 1500 calories, that doesn't mean each person is taking in 1500 calories:
1. some is coming out the other end without ever being digested
2. of the calories that reach the blood stream- in some people the body tries to convert and store it as fat immediately, some store part as fat, keep the rest as sugar (and the longer it's kept as sugar the more will be filtered out by the kidneys and literally pissed away) some will store some as fat, keep some as sugar and some will store it as glyogen (starch- which is either burned after awhile or re-converted to sugar and sent back to the blood stream- to either be converted to fat or pissed away)
3. and what one's body does with consumed calories varies over one's life- if you've lost weight your body will try harder to store more fat, if you've gained weight your body will tend to try the opposite.

If Person A and Person B consume the same number of calories in a week and get the same amount of exercise, and Person A gains (unwanted) weight while Person B doesn't, then Person A needs to consume fewer calories and/or exercise more.

Joe: has anyone ever told you you are dumber than a box of ####### rocks?

Not anyone whose opinion mattered.

There's nothing mysterious about gaining weight. A person who gains unwanted weight is consuming too many calories and/or getting too little exercise. All the talk about metabolisms and whatnot is, at best, a misunderstanding of basic science or, at worst, a phony-baloney rationalization.

***

there are differences in how people burn calories too. i usually eat 1500 - 1900 cal/day and i don't work out or anything and i should weigh a LOT more than i do by that. but i don't because i just burn it up. always have.

Right, but this is irrelevant. If you can consume 1,500 to 1,900 calories per day without gaining weight, that's great, but it doesn't change the fact that someone who does gain weight by consuming 1,500 to 1,900 calories per day needs to eat less and/or exercise more.

***

Joe, all I can say is that like me and Lisa, you must have been blessed with high metabolism. Count your blessings and skip the preachings to everyone not so lucky.

LOL. Pointing out some very basic facts is hardly "preaching." The "don't judge" crowd wants us to believe that gaining weight is some random, mysterious, unpredictable event, but it's not.

The idea that weight gain is more a byproduct of "body types," as you claimed in #419, rather than body type being more a byproduct of diet and exercise, is nonsensical.

It's not as easy for some women as it is for others. Am I right or not? You know I am, by your own words. So, live with it. Those women of different body type than BBC might (note the word might) find keeping weight off harder than BBC (due to forces other than failing to live up to the Joe Kehoskie model of saintly continence).

It's not as easy for some women as it is for others. Am I right or not? You know I am, by your own words. So, live with it. Those women of different body type than BBC might (note the word might) find keeping weight off harder than BBC

Huh? Lisa didn't fail to gain weight because she has a "slender" body; she didn't gain weight — and has a slender body — because her caloric intake was at equilibrium with her energy expenditure.

You're talking like women have no clue regarding their metabolism, which is silly. Whether a woman gets pregnant at 14 or 40, she already knows whether she's the type to gain weight easily, and if she doesn't want to gain excess weight, she needs to manage her diet and exercise accordingly. There's nothing mysterious about it.

Life as a reactionary fossil seems really ###### miserable.

Whoa ... Somewhere an irony meter just exploded with the force of a hundred bombs. LOL.

joe
different people have different metabolisms. period. I don't gain weight in spite of eating too many calories for my body type because that is how I was made. except for pregnancy, my weight has been the same since I was 14. which is full grown for a female. and I put on the weight of the babies, uterus, placenta and fluid plus 1.5 lb for boobs, which disappeared when kids got weaned. (the boobs did too, dammmit)

as for pregnancy weight, they talk as if it all comes off after you have the baby and plenty of grrls who never had weight problems before find out that losing 15 - 20 lbs of fat is incredibly harder than never having put it on in the first place. they might could eat like they did before they got pregnant, but they have to eat a LOT less than they did because if they don't that weight ain't goin nowhere and starving your self is not fun

I don't gain weight in spite of eating too many calories for my body type because that is how I was made. except for pregnancy, my weight has been the same since I was 14.

I've never seen you, but I'm quite sure there's nothing magical about your body type. You're not gaining or losing weight because your caloric intake is at equilibrium with your energy expenditure. If you started eating appreciably more or less while your daily energy expenditure remained constant, you'd gain or lose weight. It's really as simple as that.

as for pregnancy weight, they talk as if it all comes off after you have the baby and plenty of grrls who never had weight problems before find out that losing 15 - 20 lbs of fat is incredibly harder than never having put it on in the first place. they might could eat like they did before they got pregnant, but they have to eat a LOT less than they did because if they don't that weight ain't goin nowhere and starving your self is not fun

You're talking like women have no clue regarding their metabolism, which is silly. Whether a woman gets pregnant at 14 or 40, she already knows whether she's the type to gain weight easily, and if she doesn't want to gain excess weight, she needs to manage her diet and exercise accordingly. There's nothing mysterious about it

My point, clearly expressed, is that it is not as easy for some people as others.

Are you really arguing that the person who can eat 2500 calories with minimal exercise does not have it easier than the person who can only eat 1800? We are hard wired to want to consume calories, and our food culture does not help either. The latter is working against both biological instinct and cultural forces more than the former. Lisa's meatier friends might not have it so easy because of factors beyond their control. I never argued that the "different body types" are a cause rather than a result.

now why does a french woman have to be pre-pregnancy weight in order to have a social life? that's stupid. why is she running off partying when she has a small infant? what are they doing, putting their babies in day/night care to go out? jeezus, i didn't WANT to leave mine when they were little. now i WOULD have liked them to go a little longer between feeds their first 2-3 months, but hey, that's how babies are. except in france, i guess, where you prop bottles and make them go 6 hours in between feeding and let them scream with hunger for hours while go you go out and have a social life.
- got no idea what you mean by "do things for themselves"

To generalize like Druckerman, French people whack their toddlers when they have tantrums and French children grow up, on average, not really liking their parents. Strictly disciplined children will behave better, there is no doubt about it. If you want to see some damn well behaved kids, find a parent who uses "To Train Up A Child" as their guiding text (well, the ones whose children live...)

I think there are some useful things to be gained from the French model that Druckerman describes, in particular encouraging children to play and have fun on their own without direct parental involvement (please God never let me be the dad going down the slide WITH my 4 year old at the playground). But, the premise of the book is fundamentally flawed. The point of parenting (if there is one) is not to have very well behaved children, it is to raise the best adults possible. The two things--good behavior and adult success--are not necessarily positively correlated in any meaningful way. It seems to me (note seems, I've only read excerpts of the book) that the French are far less concerned with creativity, individuality, critical thinking, and the positive developmental benefits of transgressive behavior than American parents. Again, these are all generalizations. A lot of what Druckerman describes is just US parenting from 50 years ago.

A review of studies has found that the health benefits of infant male circumcision vastly outweigh the risks involved in the procedure.

But the study, published online in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, also found that while the prevalence of circumcision among American men ages 14 to 59 increased to 81 percent from 79 percent over the past decade, the rate of newborn circumcision has declined by 6 percentage points, to 77 percent, since the 1960s.

The authors conclude that the benefits — among them reduced risks of urinary tract infection, prostate cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and, in female partners, cervical cancer — outweigh the risks of local infection or bleeding. Several studies, including two randomized clinical trials, found no long-term adverse effects of circumcision on sexual performance or pleasure.

One cost-benefit analysis that considered infant urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases found that if circumcision rates were decreased to the 10 percent typical in European countries, the additional direct medical costs over 10 years of births would be more than $4.4 billion.

The comment section is pure wishcasting. "If people used condoms perfectly, circumcision wouldn't reduce HIV transmission, therefor you can't count it's HIV preventative effect as a benefit" and "If men swam in Purel all day, circumcision wouldn't reduce penile infection rates" and "Since the foreskin isn't the cause of penile cancer, the fact that circumcised men get less penile cancer can't be attributed to circumcision". Or even "since penile cancer is rare, reducing it is not a benefit"

HPV exists and exists in males. male children/adolescents who go to private pediatricians are not usually offered the HPV vaccine. and you often have to ASK for it at the city clinics, too. like males don't have sex or touch their penises. or need to be protected from sexually transmitted diseases BEFORE they are old enough to start having sex. and the usual shtt about how just gay guys get it is bullschtick. and, of course, no one's son is ever gay. (not to mention the idiotic "religious" stuff about how wouldn't their kids NEVAH have sex seeing as how nobody could possibly know or think about it if someone didn't tell them about it)

as for all the cleaning comments after that article:

i personally do not have exactly a lot of experience with that department, so i asked one of my aunties who was an ER nurse for years, (the last time we had this discussion - what was it, like 8-9 years ago?) about uncirc males and being clean. she told me (cleaning - hahahahha - it up a bit) that males are equal opportunity in the refusal to clean - department, ethnic group and age did not matter.

of course i have talked to all my gf/cousins about this and, well, let's say that maybe some men keep it nice and clean, but that is not their experience. regardless of race of male. (in case yall didn't know this, grrrls talk to each other about EVERY SINGLE THING. unless we are madly in love with him, and then we either lie or shut up because we don't want other females gettin ideeers. me and Husband had a, um, discussion after he overheard me dissin him to a couple of gf. he was real hurt and angry until i explained to him, and even then he was still Up Set and i had to keep explaining to him that i want him ALL to mahself and that grrrls got NO morals about takin some other grrrl's man and the worst thing a man can be is boring. but ah digress....)

mothers do not go into the tubs/showers with their sons after maybe age 5. most of the time it is a fight to get them to shower at all because for reasons i do NOT get, males seem to LIKE being filthy and stinky and get clean only because of us stupid females. (yes, some exceptions). so i have been informed. roll eyes. so i would bet pretty much that most little boys and big boys are NOT cleaning That Place and neither are most teenagers and adult males unless they are sexually active and the partner insists

The idea that weight gain is more a byproduct of "body types," as you claimed in #419, rather than body type being more a byproduct of diet and exercise, is nonsensical.

Nonsense, Johnny.

***

Are you really arguing that the person who can eat 2500 calories with minimal exercise does not have it easier than the person who can only eat 1800? We are hard wired to want to consume calories, and our food culture does not help either. The latter is working against both biological instinct and cultural forces more than the former. Lisa's meatier friends might not have it so easy because of factors beyond their control. I never argued that the "different body types" are a cause rather than a result.

Sure, but it's still mostly an excuse, as I said earlier. It's easier for people who are 6'10" to make it to the NBA than people who are 6'0", but if you're 6'0" and want to play in the NBA, you need to get after it. Likewise, whether you're 15 years old or 35 or 55, if you notice that you're slowing (or quickly) gaining weight, it's time to make an adjustment to your diet and/or exercise.

I understand that it can be a vicious cycle: People are overweight, so they feel bad about themselves, so they eat more. But in a scientific sense, "Hard to stop eating" and "Hard to lose weight" are two very different things.* If a person wants to lose weight and takes steps to lose weight, he or she will lose weight. It's not some mysterious phenomenon related to body type, etc.

(* It seems Weekly, Andy, et al., see the two phrases as interchangeable, which perhaps is the source of the disagreement.)

Yeah, I think agree with their conclusion but not, of course, their reasoning. IOW, yes those mohels were onto something in the same way they were onto something about prohibiting for other reasons the consumption of shellfish in the red tide infested Eastern Mediterranean, or onto something in the wisdom of banning for other reasons pig farming in a desert region. Like every other religion, Judaism's rule makers have lucked into having positive results come from _some_ rituals and taboos invented for bad or silly reasons. So good on the mohels! On the other hand, to mention some bad results: the disgusting freak mohels who choose to perform a certain "ritual" that gives babies herpes should be buried in prison.

This is a crazy thread. Gotta agree with the people appalled at WJ's tone with Lisa. I don't agree with her on many things but she's a morally decent person in the same totally obvious way that, say, Nieporent is not.

I didn't see anyone mention to the people who expressed shock and revulsion at extended breast-feeding that it's the third oldest form, after the withdrawal method and abstinence, of birth control (rhythm method surely took longer to figure out?). Nothing that natural and historically common can be truly weird, no matter how ethnocentric or naive a person might be.

#445 is good.

most of the time it is a fight to get them to shower at all because for reasons i do NOT get, males seem to LIKE being filthy and stinky and get clean only because of us stupid females. (yes, some exceptions). so i have been informed. roll eyes. so i would bet pretty much that most little boys and big boys are NOT cleaning That Place and neither are most teenagers and adult males unless they are sexually active and the partner insists

Haha this is more or less true but it's a little boy thing, not as much a teenager thing. It's not that little boys LIKE to be filthy, though; it's that they are lazy and stubborn and deeply reactionary in the classic sense. They don't want to stop what they are doing, even if they are doing nothing, in order to bathe or shower; similarly, when they are bathing or showering, they don't want to stop and get out and will only do so when forced or when the hot water runs out.

Yeah, I think agree with their conclusion but not, of course, their reasoning. IOW, yes those mohels were onto something in the same way they were onto something about prohibiting for other reasons the consumption of shellfish in the red tide infested Eastern Mediterranean, or onto something in the wisdom of banning for other reasons pig farming in a desert region. Like every other religion, Judaism's rule makers have lucked into having positive results come from _some_ rituals and taboos invented for bad or silly reasons.

I agree with your first sentence, but I don't think it's exactly luck. If people got sick on a regular basis from eating shellfish, then it's not luck that they stopped eating it. The actual rationalization may be off, like they thought that demons were in the shellfish so it became a religious reason. But it's not like they randomly banned shellfish and it turned out that it was a good idea. Religion is probably the after-the-fact justification for something that people learned over some period of time.

This _mixed fiber_ Boba Fett hoodie I'm wearing whilst typing says it's probably luck. Most of the crap in the OT was designed to be Other to the competing religions in the area; it was reactionary in the truest sense of the word. That a lot of the competing religions had rituals that were fun meant that Hebrew laws ranged from fuddy-duddy and ponderous to totally insanely repressive.

well there boy
if you don't gain enough weight, the baby/placenta will take what it wants from what you have in your own body and can hurt you. and itself.

if you gain LOTS and LOTS of weight, i guess it is because you can catch diabetes or have a hard time with delivery or other stuff.

why they insist that you HAVE TO put on fat - that i do not get. if a woman WANTS to, or does not CARE if she puts on fat, that is her thing.

i guess the - having to do with her being a good mom - is all the helping her feel guilty by doing/not doing something or other with her weight

I worded that poorly Lisa. I guess I should put it this way. My wife gained less weight with #1 and #2 than she did with #3 and that was because she was in incredible shape when surprise - #3 happened. All that said, her pregnancy with the 3rd one was far easier than the 1st (she was far healthier with #3, running half marathons right before she happened).

And I do think that she would have not gained a whole lot with number 3 if it wasn't for her having foot surgery the week before we found out she was pregnant. The surgery was actually planned with the idea that we were done (I've said it before - #3 was a surprise, if only because it took a couple of years for her to happen when it took a couple of weeks for the boys). Our plan was for her to have surgery in June, have her yearly exam in July (back on the pill), and be happy with our 2 boys. Of course, we are more than ecstatic to have our baby girl and we know for sure that there will not be any more.